[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 196 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H10112-H10113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         EXTENDING ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITIONS TO TERRITORIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon) for 5 minutes.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to 
express my utter disappointment with the inclusion of extending the 
prohibition of cockfighting in the territories in the farm bill before 
us today.
  While there are a lot of provisions that will benefit the largest 
constituency of any House Member, for over 3 million American citizens 
living in Puerto Rico, the inclusion of this amendment will detract 
from the other high points of this bill.
  This bill will improve accessibility to grants and programs on the 
island, and for that, I am extremely grateful and confident that this 
will help my constituents.
  But, on the other hand, since 2002, the farm bill has included the 
very

[[Page H10113]]

same wording about the Animal Welfare Act, and it will allow the States 
to manage and regulate this practice in the territories. For the case 
of Puerto Rico, we have been regulating the industry of cockfighting 
since 1933.
  This is an industry that represents more than $18 million in our 
economy and also more than 27,000 direct and indirect jobs on the 
island. So we are talking about how distressful the economic situation 
on the island is, but then we are approving another Federal regulation 
without even consulting the people of Puerto Rico or even the 
territories.
  In our case, we were not even allowed to vote for that amendment here 
on the floor, neither in the Senate. So territories will never have a 
word if we cannot vote, if we are not represented.
  But also, limiting this activity will also provide a lot of these 
industries to go underground, and that will hurt directly the economy 
of the island. For that reason, I invite any Member who wishes to come 
to Puerto Rico and see how regulated the cockfighting industry is to 
come and visit.
  I fear that the language that is adopted will turn some underground, 
and overburdensome laws and regulations on the island, as they always 
do--and we are going to see a black market pop up and encounter more 
harm than good, not just to the birds of those who participate, but 
also for the industry itself.
  For me, it is troubling that the territories were not given a proper 
chance to even debate this issue. We were not consulted in the drafting 
of this amendment or at any committee markup or as a congressional 
courtesy. I represent 3.2 million American citizens on the island, but 
I can't vote on the floor. I don't have any representation on the 
Senate side. But then we have another regulation coming to the island 
without even giving us an opportunity to debate it or an opportunity to 
actually vote against it. I think even the Constitution of the United 
States allows States to regulate and reserve those powers to the 
States. We can't even challenge or sue the Federal Government with 
this, because the constitutional amendment provided that the 
territories are just a possession of the U.S. Congress and Congress can 
do whatever they want with us.
  That will affect directly the industry of the island. We are talking 
about not just the rules of construction of venues, penalties for 
events, public behavior at cockfights, the rules that have been engaged 
since 1933.
  This is an industry, as I already said, that the government of Puerto 
Rico, House, Senate, and even the Governor are opposed to have this ban 
on cockfighting. I think this should be an issue reserved for the 
States as is happening right now in the current farm bill, and I hope 
we can have the opportunity to discuss this, any other opportunity, 
even having a hearing on this issue.
  My constituents are concerned with how this prohibition will hurt 
them and their families, and it is my responsibility to advocate for 
them the same as the territories of the United States. We are all 
against this provision.

                          ____________________